but helene gives us here the sensual texture of real intellectualism, the thinking animal wringing her hands, modulating her voice with her heat, her thought, perched on the point of creative expression- it is superb
intellectualism whether practiced by man or woman, is useless. What is actually produced? Nothing would be my answer; nothing of any practical use to the average human being.
@Bolinas1971 I'm not saying that the human intellect hasn't brought us all a few goodies along the way; I'm saying that the kind of recursive, self referential, endless feedback loop of human arrogance ie:Foucalt, Derrida, is convoluted and clumsy. Western European philosophers simply pillaged the elegant philosophies of the far east, inventing new names for ancient concepts, and attempted to pass them off as their own, Dweebles Mcstanx
@electricvalentina This is from a 40 minutes interview from 1995 called Talking Liberties, this being the volume 3 of the program hosted by Jonathan Ree.
'great mind is always universal...great thinker becomes very rapidly universal'....seriously, Cixious needs to be deconstructed!! according to whose standards?
Her comments on universal thinkers are naive. Especially with an example case such as Derrida's. What about cultural imperialism? And celebrity culture? Even Gandhi could still become, or is already, another kind of Che - ie a mere poster figure whose international fame has nothing to do with his actual thinking.
Your comments are what sound naive, and worse. How is the ability to cross boundaries of east and west in your work (Derrida) a naive example of universal thinking? Cixous spoke eloquently of the terms "intellectual" and "phallocentrism" in this whopping 51/2 minute discussion, and you're upset because she didn't mention Britney Spears?? Sounds like cultural imperialism to me.
Che, a mere poster figure? now that's not a naive comment, it's idiotic. Che has become a universal SYMBOL representing complexities of revolution, counterculture, martyrdom, etc. You are only proving Cixous point, MaximisedInsight. Sounds like you are stuck with the fallaciousness of your phallocentric belief that you are Cixous intellectual superior, what lunacy.
Ok, a universal symbol, then. Che's fame across cultures still doesn't reflect the greatness of his 'thought' since most admirers wouldn't be able to say much about that. What's phallocentric about critically commenting on someone's claims? I don't believe that seeing weaknesses in a particular argument makes me someone's intellectual superior. It is true, though, that I don't subscribe to authority worship that attributes infallibility to any intellectual - including Cixous.
This is only because Che wasn't a philosopher, he was an activist. His fight trumped his thinking in terms of notoriety and engagement. However, his actions stemmed from his thoughts and beliefs, which whether or not one knows specifically, one senses through his fight -because of the universal chord such actions struck. You'd have been better off citing Jesus for this useless and erroneous point. At least he went around thinking, and look what's been done with that. Che still proves her point.
Although not nearly as well Derrida, whose concept of Deconstruction has had a tremendous influence on our modern lives, undeniably. This is true despite the controversy that surrounded his views on politics, squabbles with his peers and untraditional writing style. To completely discredit this contribution is beyond naive. But that is beside the fact that you are missing the whole point Cixous is making. Let me explain. For example, most emotional displays are universal, meaning an Aborigine
By saying that Derrida's thought is controversial and very much part of a particular culture as opposed to universal, I am 'completely discrediting his contribution'? I don't think so. And I do get her point. I just think it pretty evident that thought, like the language in which it is inevitably cast and unlike, perhaps, certain basic aspects mimics of body language, is largely a product of its culture and historical situation.
What I find naive in this are comments such as 'A great mind/thinker is always universal'. To use Derrida of all people as an example, whose philosophy is famously controversial and by a large percentage of even Western philosophers considered anything but great, doesn't really support Cixous's point. I'm not 'upset because she doesn't mention B. Spears'. My point is that international fame does not necessarily say anything about the greatness of someone's thought.
would be able to recognize your European facial and verbal expressions of rage, pain, disgust, glee, etc. It is this meaning of universality Cixous is using, not popularity, which is subject to change at any given moment. She cites Gandhi because in his thought and teachings he is able to encompass other differing and opposing views and uncover a common ground. That he became of wide influence and value is the effect of this. Universality, in terms of great thinking, and international fame are
not the same thing. If philosophers had Hollywood publicists maybe you'd have something. What bothers me is your use of the word naive not only because it is dismissive, insulting, and unwarranted, but because it indicates your authority over her ability to think. This is what is phallocentric. Your motives are very apparent, your arguments weak, and your penis is showing.
Can you think of a way in which I can express my disagreement with Cixous that would bother you less? I'm always happy to learn about linguistic etiquette and your way of disagreeing with me is probably not meant as an example in this regard. As to my apparent motives - what do you think they are? Do you think they have something to do with the, I suppose metaphorical, penis you like to attribute to me?
Women have to write our histories, to break free from the limitations of not sexual differences but sexual inequalities. We have to think more critically about our role in history.
(Hehe my two cents, email me if anyone has an interesting article please)
To struggle with a concept should be something we engage with not deny. To deny something is to give it credence. Cixous's notion of language being masculine for example is worthy of considerable thought by men and how this impacts upon women. To deny this as a point of argument is to deny the possibility of human beings growing and developing within the framework of humanity.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Cixous' critique of the intellectual is flagrant. It reeks of Gramscian Marxism. This sort of thinking calls the Anglo-American tradition of reason and truth into question. The US and Britain ought to nuke France immediately. And Germany.
And Italy too, for good measure.
Also: Feminists have to get over how life is. Women are women. Get over it.
the word "intellectual" starting having that "huge impact" when it became apparent that the intellectuals defend,rationalise,buttress, support and live financially from the system.. any system... look to who has betrayed you--the "intellectuals" and when the professors take up your cause: know that it is lost.
According to 'Les Intellectuels en France. De l'affaire Dreyfus à nos jours' (Pascal Ory et Jean-François Sirinelli, 2002), the substantivised adjective 'intellectuel' was first utilised in Maurice Barrès and Ferdinand Brunetière's respective responses to Zola's infamous letter 'J'accuse', published in L'Auror (1898), and addressed to the President Félix Faure, amidst the Dreyfus Affair.
I like the phrase, "The great thought-fighters in our century have been universal." Not fighters against fought (as on the right), but in and of it.
Fremglerk 2 months ago
what a charming lady
ZabRinUta 10 months ago
Oh, what a great chemistry between the two of them, it is so nice to see...
naposletku100 1 year ago
What was it about in the end ? ^ ^
mariekitu 1 year ago
Pure horror...
Worse than Duras...
YunaBonbeurre 1 year ago
@YunaBonbeurre There's a new one now that is even more scary : Caroline Fourest
lukawski100 4 months ago
she can ecriture my feminine any day
vicodinandcigarettes 1 year ago 7
but helene gives us here the sensual texture of real intellectualism, the thinking animal wringing her hands, modulating her voice with her heat, her thought, perched on the point of creative expression- it is superb
Bolinas1971 1 year ago
intellectualism whether practiced by man or woman, is useless. What is actually produced? Nothing would be my answer; nothing of any practical use to the average human being.
zoobly3 1 year ago
@zoobly3 candy is a product of intellectualism
dweebly
Bolinas1971 1 year ago
@Bolinas1971 I'm not saying that the human intellect hasn't brought us all a few goodies along the way; I'm saying that the kind of recursive, self referential, endless feedback loop of human arrogance ie:Foucalt, Derrida, is convoluted and clumsy. Western European philosophers simply pillaged the elegant philosophies of the far east, inventing new names for ancient concepts, and attempted to pass them off as their own, Dweebles Mcstanx
zoobly3 1 year ago
does anyone know where one can watch the rest of the interview?
electricvalentina 2 years ago
@electricvalentina This is from a 40 minutes interview from 1995 called Talking Liberties, this being the volume 3 of the program hosted by Jonathan Ree.
beppilgrim 9 months ago 2
maximisedinsight? yeah right, you sound retarded
as does your nazi friend.
the woman is brilliant.
seaseaR1DER 2 years ago
'great mind is always universal...great thinker becomes very rapidly universal'....seriously, Cixious needs to be deconstructed!! according to whose standards?
seems to shift her understanding of universal
nkadzi 2 years ago
Her comments on universal thinkers are naive. Especially with an example case such as Derrida's. What about cultural imperialism? And celebrity culture? Even Gandhi could still become, or is already, another kind of Che - ie a mere poster figure whose international fame has nothing to do with his actual thinking.
MaximisedInsight 2 years ago
Yes, yes, and yes.
Doopex 2 years ago
Your comments are what sound naive, and worse. How is the ability to cross boundaries of east and west in your work (Derrida) a naive example of universal thinking? Cixous spoke eloquently of the terms "intellectual" and "phallocentrism" in this whopping 51/2 minute discussion, and you're upset because she didn't mention Britney Spears?? Sounds like cultural imperialism to me.
brojbblues 2 years ago 3
Che, a mere poster figure? now that's not a naive comment, it's idiotic. Che has become a universal SYMBOL representing complexities of revolution, counterculture, martyrdom, etc. You are only proving Cixous point, MaximisedInsight. Sounds like you are stuck with the fallaciousness of your phallocentric belief that you are Cixous intellectual superior, what lunacy.
brojbblues 2 years ago
Ok, a universal symbol, then. Che's fame across cultures still doesn't reflect the greatness of his 'thought' since most admirers wouldn't be able to say much about that. What's phallocentric about critically commenting on someone's claims? I don't believe that seeing weaknesses in a particular argument makes me someone's intellectual superior. It is true, though, that I don't subscribe to authority worship that attributes infallibility to any intellectual - including Cixous.
MaximisedInsight 2 years ago
This is only because Che wasn't a philosopher, he was an activist. His fight trumped his thinking in terms of notoriety and engagement. However, his actions stemmed from his thoughts and beliefs, which whether or not one knows specifically, one senses through his fight -because of the universal chord such actions struck. You'd have been better off citing Jesus for this useless and erroneous point. At least he went around thinking, and look what's been done with that. Che still proves her point.
brojbblues 2 years ago
Although not nearly as well Derrida, whose concept of Deconstruction has had a tremendous influence on our modern lives, undeniably. This is true despite the controversy that surrounded his views on politics, squabbles with his peers and untraditional writing style. To completely discredit this contribution is beyond naive. But that is beside the fact that you are missing the whole point Cixous is making. Let me explain. For example, most emotional displays are universal, meaning an Aborigine
brojbblues 2 years ago
By saying that Derrida's thought is controversial and very much part of a particular culture as opposed to universal, I am 'completely discrediting his contribution'? I don't think so. And I do get her point. I just think it pretty evident that thought, like the language in which it is inevitably cast and unlike, perhaps, certain basic aspects mimics of body language, is largely a product of its culture and historical situation.
MaximisedInsight 2 years ago
What I find naive in this are comments such as 'A great mind/thinker is always universal'. To use Derrida of all people as an example, whose philosophy is famously controversial and by a large percentage of even Western philosophers considered anything but great, doesn't really support Cixous's point. I'm not 'upset because she doesn't mention B. Spears'. My point is that international fame does not necessarily say anything about the greatness of someone's thought.
MaximisedInsight 2 years ago
would be able to recognize your European facial and verbal expressions of rage, pain, disgust, glee, etc. It is this meaning of universality Cixous is using, not popularity, which is subject to change at any given moment. She cites Gandhi because in his thought and teachings he is able to encompass other differing and opposing views and uncover a common ground. That he became of wide influence and value is the effect of this. Universality, in terms of great thinking, and international fame are
brojbblues 2 years ago
not the same thing. If philosophers had Hollywood publicists maybe you'd have something. What bothers me is your use of the word naive not only because it is dismissive, insulting, and unwarranted, but because it indicates your authority over her ability to think. This is what is phallocentric. Your motives are very apparent, your arguments weak, and your penis is showing.
brojbblues 2 years ago
Can you think of a way in which I can express my disagreement with Cixous that would bother you less? I'm always happy to learn about linguistic etiquette and your way of disagreeing with me is probably not meant as an example in this regard. As to my apparent motives - what do you think they are? Do you think they have something to do with the, I suppose metaphorical, penis you like to attribute to me?
MaximisedInsight 2 years ago
She's so charming and amazing.
Women have to write our histories, to break free from the limitations of not sexual differences but sexual inequalities. We have to think more critically about our role in history.
(Hehe my two cents, email me if anyone has an interesting article please)
saharanankan 3 years ago 10
"We are all a little ambivalent." Love it!
cpenilla81 3 years ago 2
can you be "vaginocratic"? I would join such a club.
richardmullins44 3 years ago
VAGINOCRAT. how do i get in?
Herr2Cents 3 years ago
Comment removed
Herr2Cents 3 years ago
on the serious side,she is spot on in her views, well done.
Herr2Cents 3 years ago
Comment removed
richardmullins44 3 years ago
Bullshit.
higher7000 3 years ago
she is so intelligent!
and soooo beautiful...
admirable
kundalire 3 years ago 2
Nice Jacket!!
avonali 3 years ago
To struggle with a concept should be something we engage with not deny. To deny something is to give it credence. Cixous's notion of language being masculine for example is worthy of considerable thought by men and how this impacts upon women. To deny this as a point of argument is to deny the possibility of human beings growing and developing within the framework of humanity.
PetertBill 3 years ago 3
Where is this interview from?
brauer810s 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Cixous' critique of the intellectual is flagrant. It reeks of Gramscian Marxism. This sort of thinking calls the Anglo-American tradition of reason and truth into question. The US and Britain ought to nuke France immediately. And Germany.
And Italy too, for good measure.
Also: Feminists have to get over how life is. Women are women. Get over it.
deadlyvengeance222 4 years ago
Dick
mynameisconcrete 4 years ago 3
The words of an oppressor.
TeenageWildlife 3 years ago
Please, buy yourself a new brain.
brincher 3 years ago 2
Yes, thanks for posting.
MrFlimsy 4 years ago
where is the second part of this interview?!
i find her attractive even if she could be my mother
so universal minds may be Aphrodisiacs as well
mishulici 4 years ago
THANK YOU for posting this!!!
leboamaster 4 years ago
Do you have more???? this is very interesting. Please post more if you have more.
abzaak 4 years ago 2
Cixous is truly wonderful. "Laugh of the Medusa" is a must-read, among her other pieces of 'écriture féminine'.
felixunus 4 years ago 3
the word "intellectual" starting having that "huge impact" when it became apparent that the intellectuals defend,rationalise,buttress, support and live financially from the system.. any system... look to who has betrayed you--the "intellectuals" and when the professors take up your cause: know that it is lost.
ColdChicago 4 years ago
According to 'Les Intellectuels en France. De l'affaire Dreyfus à nos jours' (Pascal Ory et Jean-François Sirinelli, 2002), the substantivised adjective 'intellectuel' was first utilised in Maurice Barrès and Ferdinand Brunetière's respective responses to Zola's infamous letter 'J'accuse', published in L'Auror (1898), and addressed to the President Félix Faure, amidst the Dreyfus Affair.
gc65531941 3 years ago
Thank you SO much for this! Wonderful thinker she is!
rolachea 4 years ago